In case you missed Sunday’s Russell’s Tea Party, here’s a recap of the dicsussion.
Topic – Morality
Perhaps the most obvious question that drove the discussion concerned how one defines morality. Some members prescribe to Sam Harris’ definition: objective truths that relate to the flourishing of a human’s/sentient life’s well-being. While “well-being” is hard to measure, one member made the comparison to health: there’s no set definition, but you know what is and is not harmful to your health.
Another opinion: morals have different levels of severity. There are civil laws (what is legal and illegal), and there are more Lockeian laws that revolve around the social contract and the consideration of whether or not an action is beneficial and/or harmful for people. Some gray area that comes from this relates to measuring human livelihood when considering whether an act such as murder could ever be justifiable.
The discussion later moved toward considering how to raise children with a solid moral framework, even though they don’t have a fully-developed mental capacity to comprehend everything. One member suggested a grid structure set up as such: permission+not permission/hurt+not hurt. At a basic level, it gives kids something to think about beyond just a yes/no answer from parents.
One question to leave you with: is it easier to recognize what is immoral versus what is moral?
Join us at 7 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 23, in Wylie 115 for a Sunday Funday!